South Woods Baptist Church

The Life and Christology of Nestorius of Constantinople

Introduction

Few people's lives in the history of the church can be said to be as much of a tragedy as that of Nestorius of Constantinople.  He was condemned and exiled for his belief in the fully divine and the fully human natures of Christ, a view that is considered to be orthodox by the contemporary church.  In fact, if one holding Nestorius's Christology would have been born thirty years after his condemnation, then that person would have been considered to be orthodox.  It is this tragedy that causes one to reevaluate the events surrounding his condemnation and the theology that led to the decision of the council of Ephesus.  In doing so, one should understand that Nestorius maintained an orthodox Christology of Jesus' deity and humanity.  In order to more fully understand the decision of the council, one must look at the entire scope of his life so as to gain a full perspective of his life and Christology.

A Short Sketch of His Life

Early Life

Not much is known of the early life of Nestorius.  The first record of his existence available to us involves his advance to bishop.  Sisinnius, the bishop of Constantinople, died in 428, leaving the most important see in the Eastern Empire vacant.  Emperor Theodosius II sent for a Syrian monk named Nestorius from the monastery of Euprepios near Antioch as the replacement.[1]  Other than being known in the region of the church of Syria as a fine preacher and dedicated ascetic, Nestorius was relatively unheard of to anyone else in the Constantinople see. Nevertheless, in April of 428, he left his monastery and was consecrated as bishop of Constantinople.[2] 

Some called him a proud and ignorant man whose lack of intellect was well covered by his rhetorical skills.[3]  The accusation that he lacked intellect was based on Nestorius's claim in a sermon that the earliest patristic tradition did not maintain or validate the title "Mother of God" for Mary, when actually Origen mentioned the term in a commentary on Deuteronomy.[4]  This sermon was part of a series of sermons he preached soon after becoming bishop on the devotionally popular term for Mary, theotokos ("mother of God").  His purpose in arguing that no earlier patristic fathers used theotokos in reference to Mary was to put away any idea that the creature gave birth to the uncreatable.[5]  His teaching on this matter was not unique to him, but stemmed from the thought of his former teacher, Theodore Mopsuestia.[6]

 

Nestorius's Early Christological Decisions

The early days of Nestorius's reign as bishop were spent attempting to spread orthodoxy throughout his sphere of influence.  Soon, though, he found himself at odds with two rivaling parties in his own see.  One party of monks under Dalmatius and Eusebius asserted that Mary should in fact be called theotokos, while the other party, followers of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore Mopsuestia, argued that to call Mary theotokos was blasphemous; they argued that she should instead be referred to as "mother of the Man Jesus," or anthropotokos.[7]  Nestorius had both groups to meet with him in his palace and attempted to formulate a compromise between the two parties.  He could not deny that Mary was in fact the "Mother of God," but at the same time she was also the "Mother of the Man Jesus."  His solution argued that both terms were inadequate when used alone to describe the incarnation because they would eventually lead unorthodox teachings and conclusions.[8]  Theotokos does not do justice to the fact that Mary was mother to a man named Jesus, who the church recognizes as being the divine incarnation.  anthropotokos does not do justice to the fact that Mary was mother to a being that was not merely man, but was in fact God Himself.  Nestorius eventually sent both parties away having vetoed both terms and presenting them with the replacement term Christotokos, "mother of Christ."[9]  Thus, in one term Mary was shown to be the mother of one being who at once was both God and man.

 

The Council of Ephesus

The Basis for the Council

These early decisions made by Nestorius led greatly to the calling of the Council of Ephesus.  The use of theotokos was not just a problem for Nestorius in his own see, but its use had spread throughout the entire empire by the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431.  Thus, his reservation in using the term to describe Jesus brought much speculation against Nestorius before the council assembled.  Nestorius argued that Jesus was fully human and fully divine, of which modern orthodoxy would commend; but consequently, his overemphasis on Jesus' two natures led many to believe that Nestorius was trying to say that Jesus was actually two persons in one body.[10]  Though Nestorius did not argue for this exact view, many attributed it to him, and their attribution ultimately condemned him in the eyes of the church. 

Another reason for the convening of the Council of Ephesus was the political antagonism of Cyril of Alexandria.  Cyril was a strong promoter of theotokos, and felt that Nestorius was threatening the orthodoxy of the church by his use of Christotokos.[11]  To his detriment, though, Cyril was not as much of a theologian as he was a politician.  His Christology was much weaker than that of Nestorius and eventually its legacy will be condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.  What Cyril did well, though, was to persuade people to fight against the Christology of Nestorius.  He never attempted to truly understand the arguments of Nestorius because if he would have, he would have seen that Nestorius was not arguing at all for two separate persons in the body of Jesus.  Instead, Cyril built a straw man in place of Nestorius and systematically tore it down, with the result of tearing down Nestorius as well.[12] 

The Differences Between Nestorius and Cyril

A major difference between Cyril and Nestorius was based on a true distinction in their theologies.  Cyril was resolute in arguing for the person of Christ to be made up of two natures that were hypostatically united to create a 99% divine, 1% human Christ.  Cyril was known for using an ocean of salt water, boundless in size, as an image of Christ's deity.  The humanity of Jesus was seen as a single droplet of wine.  If the wine was dropped into this ocean, then what remained was still the ocean, although no one could deny that the wine drop was still fully present within the ocean.  This was termed the absorption theory.[13]

Nestorius, though, was very much against Cyril's absorption theory because it greatly limited the humanness of Jesus.  This theory did not give ample room for the humanity of Christ to operate because His humanity was so overwhelmed by His deity, thus making a full range of authentic human experiences an impossibility.  Cyril would argue that when one sees Jesus praying to the Father, what one is actually seeing is Christ performing a kind of "pious fraud" for the benefit of later reader's instruction.[14] 

Nestorius saw that Cyril was using statements about God that were absolutely inappropriate for Him.  Cyril, while claiming to hold to the humanity of Jesus, argued in ways that seemed to say that the humanity of Jesus was not to be placed before His divinity.  In places where it would not make sense for His humanity to stand adjacent to His divinity, then Cyril argued that Jesus' divine nature would always overshadow His human nature.  For example, God could not be said to be capable of any passions since he was changeless and self-moving by definition of being God, but such change is conventional for the nature of humanity.  He could not be conceived as capable of any ignorance if one also held him to be omniscient, nor could one say that he was omnipotent and omnipresent while at the same time saying that he was limited.[15]

The main difference, though, between Nestorius and Cyril's Christology is found in their use of language.  If Cyril would have made an attempt to understand that which Nestorius was truly arguing, then much of the controversy between them could have been averted.  The central difference in their use of language was focused on their use of four words: ousia, physis, hypostasis, and prosopon.[16]

For Nestorius, the jargon of the theologian was the most important aspect of his understanding.  As of his time in history, there was not a universal use of technical vocabulary with regards to theology.  Nestorius set out to remedy this problem by being very careful in the way that he used these terms regarding Christ.  He wanted to rid orthodoxy of its use of inappropriate terms in inappropriate ways with regards to Christ.  When the heat of the Christological controversy was at its hottest, both parties were using the same four terms stated above in different manners; this separate usage was the main cause of the controversy.[17]  To have a greater understanding of Nestorius use of the main Christological terms, one must look at the way in which he used them in relation to one another.

Ousia is the genus of a thing.  It is something that can be thought of abstractly or theoretically, but it is not necessarily something to be found in reality.[18]  An example would be a hobbit such as of which is written in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  One can talk of a hobbit using descriptive terms, although an actual hobbit does not exist.  The ousia then is that which makes up the essential being of a thing.

The idea of physis is intimately related to the ousia in that it speaks of the physical characteristics of the nature of a thing.  One must understand though that these physical characteristics do not mean that a thing is to be found in reality.[19]  A hobbit can be described as being short with hairy feet, but this description of its nature does not mean that it is real.[20]  This use of physis, though, takes the discussion of a hobbit one step further towards a more precise aspect than the broad term of ousia.

If one were to run into a hobbit one day on the sidewalk, then the two above-mentioned terms would not be able to connote the hobbit that you saw in reality.  The term hypostasis would be needed, denoting the tangible reality of a thing.  This term is quite similar to that of physis, thus making them both very difficult to distinguish when used by different writers, such as Nestorius and Cyril.  Proper usage, though, demands that hypostasis is the proper term to indicate the concreteness of something.[21]

Therefore, if one wants to speak of something's nature in reality using the vocabulary available in the fifth century, then one must speak of it using hypostasis.  An ousia or physis without a subsequent hypostasis is something that is merely theoretical reality.  Nestorius purports this line of argument when speaking of Christ.  McGuckin properly writes, "One must not conceive of an ousia without a hypostasis as if the union in Christ had taken place in an ousia."[22]  Nestorius, though, even found fault with the term hypostasis because he didn't feel it properly asserted a thing's individualness.  He found, instead, that it was more sensible to use a different word altogether, that of prosopon.  Prosopon was the preferred term of the Antiochene theologians.  Literally meaning "face," the prosopon is the external form of hypostasis that can be observed externally.[23]  "Each essence (ousia)", writes McGuckin, "is characterized by its proper nature (physis), everything that is which makes it up, and in turn every nature that is hypostatically real presents itself to the scrutiny of the senses in its own prosopon."[24]  These outward, observable characteristics speak to the observer, telling him what is the nature (physis) of the thing, and also what is its genus (ousia).

To the modern reader, these terms at first glance seem indistinguishable, but after further study begin to make sense, but it is also easily understandable why so much was made of their usage with regards to the way in which the divine and human aspects of Christ came together in one body.  In actual usage, though, some of these terms were not an option because of their semantic history within theological controversies.  Ousia has a fixed position in the fifth century technical jargon.  It was used at Nicea to specify what was essential and ontologically given.  Related to the doctrine of Christ, it would be used to speak of the essence of the impassible and eternal divine nature, as well as the passible, limited human nature.  Ousia, however, could never be used to relate the manner of combining the two natures of Christ, because then one would speak of a third ousia.[25]  The term physis previously appeared in the work of Appolinarius, who ultimately said that Christ was less than fully human, thus making it undesirable to use in the present debate.[26]  With these two terms out of the semantic race, only hypostasis and prosoponwere left available to use.  Prosopon was used by Nestorius, while Cyril alternated between physis and hypostasis, ultimately using  hypostasis as a keyword.[27] 

 

Actions Leading Up to the Council

Stemming from the two main differences discussed above, a Christological controversy was defined.  One side of the controversy, led politically by Cyril, followed the Word/flesh model of Christology, which said that the humanness of Christ came from the shell of his body, but that His divineness came from the Logos and functioned as His mind.  The other side of the controversy, led by Nestorius, took the position of the Word/Man model of Christology, which said that Jesus was at once fully human and fully divine.  He had a complete human nature and a complete divine nature subsisting in His one body.

Once the controversy began to gain attention, Cyril wasted no time in taking action to put down what he saw as a heresy stemming from Nestorius.  Cyril perceived Nestorius as infringing on the Alexandrine principle of the unity of Christ by his insistence on Christ having two natures.  So, very soon Cyril began to gather theological and political backing as he was looking towards squelching Nestorius and others who held to the Word/Man Christology.  Cyril used the great wealth of the see of Alexandria, as well as his political ties with the see of Rome.[28]  With the wealth that he had at his disposal, he found many who were willing to give their support in exchange for gold.  He didn't have to try very hard, though, to gain the support of Rome because of the disdain that was growing between Rome and Constantinople.  From the time of the Council of Constantinople, the bishop of that city claimed a status that was rival to that of the Bishop of Rome.  This did not please those in the Roman church, thus making them more than happy to lend support to the cause of Cyril.

Another mark against Nestorius came when he gave sanctuary to a group of Pelagians who had been condemned by Rome.  Rome saw this as a direct attack against their authority.  For this reason along with those mentioned above, the Roman bishop Celestine called a synod in Rome in 430 and they condemned Nestorius.[29]  This synod appointed Cyril as a delegate to go to Constantinople and to ask Nestorius to recant.  Before Cyril took the long journey, though, he wrote two letters to Nestorius demanding that he recant.  Nestorius found these letters to be unacceptable because of the harsh terms that Cyril was stipulating, leading Cyril to write a third letter that included twelve anathemas that Nestorius must accept.[30]  These anathemas stated clearly the Word/Flesh doctrine as well as condemning the Word/Man doctrine to which Nestorius held.[31]  In response, Nestorius sent back to Cyril twelve anathemas of his own.[32]  These two sets of anathemas caused such chaos in the Eastern church that emperors Valentinian III, of the Western Roman empire, and Theodosius II, of the Eastern Roman Empire, called for a church wide council that would meet in Ephesus on Jude 7, 431.[33]

 

The Council of Ephesus

On the date set by the emperors for the convening of the council, only Cyril and his followers had arrived at Ephesus.  Very few supporters of Nestorius had arrived, and Nestorius himself did not make his presence felt.  In Nestorius's silence, Cyril and his followers began to rouse the city against the Nestorian camp before his supporters, especially his biggest supporter John of Antioch, arrived.  After waiting two weeks, Cyril convened the council on June 22 without the presence of Nestorius, while at the same time disregarding seventy-eight bishops as well as the imperial legate.[34]  On this same day, the council condemned Nestorius in absentia.  He was informed of his sentence by a rather offensive letter:

The holy council, gathered together in the great city of the Ephesians by the grace of God, on the convocation of the very pious sovereigns and friends of Christ, to Nestorius, the new Judas: Be informed that, by reason of your impious preachings and of your disobedience to the canons, this present day, June 22, in conformity with church rules, you have been deposed by the holy council, and you are excluded from all rank in the Church.[35] 

Needless to say, Nestorius, when he and his supporters received the council's letter of condemnation, was furious.  When John of Antioch arrived four days later, Nestorius and his supporters convened their own meeting, declaring they were the true council, and in short order condemned Cyril as well.[36]

In an attempt to keep from the two councils leading to a schism, Theodosius II ordered that Cyril and Nestorius should be imprisoned immediately.  But Cyril, being an able politician, convinced the emperor to call a meeting of emissaries from both Cyril and Nestorius's parties to meet with the emperor in Chalcedon with the purpose of resolving their differences.  Theodosius II agreed, but once they met in Chalcedon, Cyril gained the favor of the emperor quickly, resulting in the emperor upholding the ruling of the council that Cyril called, which is held as the true council of Ephesus, with the result that Nestorius was condemned for his words and actions.[37] 

 

The Results of the Council

As an immediate result of the council, Nestorius was sent to Antioch and deposed from his position as patriarch of Constantinople.  He lived in a monastery in Antioch for four years.  Soon, though, his presence there began to way down the bishop of the city, his former friend and supporter John, and Nestorius was sent away to the city of Petra on the west side of the Jordan river.  Later Nestorius was moved to an Oasis in the Libyan Desert.[38] 

Another result of the council of Ephesus was that soon many bishops became aware of what political actions Cyril had taken and they felt that they were kept in the dark about what views Cyril truly held.  His twelve anathemas against Nestorius soon went public and many claimed that the statements were as heretical as what they spoke against.[39]  The Roman church found Cyril's anathemas to be embarrassing, so they asked him to make a retraction of his anathemas.  He refused to retract them, but he did agree to reinterpret them so as to be more palatable to the church.[40]  All of this controversy eventually led to the council of Chalcedon in 451, where the Word/Flesh view would be condemned, and the Word/Man view would be upheld.  Even in his remote location, Nestorius heard of this council's decision and he felt that his doctrine was justified by its decision.[41]

 

The Heritage of Nestorius

As a direct result of his condemnation and deposition, Nestorius and those who held to the same Word/man view as him were left without a place in the Orthodox Church.  They soon, though, began a church of their own, holding to the convictions of the dual natures of Christ that had caused Nestorius's condemnation.   Fearing the same fate of Nestorius, what is referred to as the "Nestorian" church crossed over to Persia and founded a school, which eventually became the center of education in Persia.[42]  The Nestorian church at one point had thriving missions in and around Arabia, India, and even China.  It was not long, though, until political rivals came against the Nestorian church, diminishing its numbers greatly and leading to its dispersion among the world.[43]

Throughout the centuries of Church history, Nestorius was hailed as the leader of a heresy that threatened an orthodox Christology, but in 1889 a Syrian copy of a book written by Nestorius was discovered.  Within its pages, The Book of Heraclides gives a true account of the

Christology of Nestorius.[44]  Surprisingly the book contradicts much of what Nestorius supposedly said before and at the councils in Ephesus.  Heraclides gives proof that Nestorius's Word/man Christology, at least at the time of the writing of the book, was actually orthodox.  In trying to produce an answer as to why there seems two Christologies of Nestorius, many scholars think that after his exile, Nestorius had plenty of time to think about what he had said and done, and he eventually changed his mind about much of his Christology.[45]  While the former view is possible, it is more probable that Nestorius's Christology was misconstrued by his opponents because of his insistence on using specific, technical jargon when discussing the two natures of Christ.[46]

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, one must recognize that the thought of Nestorius was crucial to the forming of an orthodox view of Christology.  If not for his merciless fight against those who would do away with the humanity of Christ, one would likely find himself in a docetic or monophysitic orthodoxy today.  The Nestorian controversy is important for the contemporary church because the church must not lose sight of its troubled past, so that it will not continue to repeat the same mistakes that have already been corrected in the annals of history.  Though Nestorius fared poorly with regards to the outcome of Ephesus, many today feel sympathy for him, and many more feel theologically uniform with him.  It is because of his kind of thought that twenty-first century Christians can truly say that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, and because of both of His natures, Christ was a suitable sacrifice for their sins.